of the families and they're really struggling in terms of just having availability of housing, jobs and opportunity are for their children to have a safe place to stay in the programs and i want to reiterate there is more than enough budget to meet all of these needs so we as a community members and voters ask that the board of supervisors be diligent and thoughtful and responsible when approving the final budget and you can't afford to rubber stamp such a critical policy document. we must work together to create a budget that helps all san franciscans to be part of the recovery and make san francisco whole and thriving and functioning so please invest by supporting the district 6 budget. thank you very much for listen listening. >> okay. thank you very much. any other members of the public -- if there are members of the public please line up on the

far wall and we will get to you. all right. >> hello supervisors. address those on the budget committee today. what incredibly moving stories we have heard over the day. there is so much need in the city and probably now more than ever we have seen one of the highest levels of displacement in san francisco history and surpassing the 2001 bub and he will any of the budgetary elements go toward off setting and supplying and creating because where i see the lack is where we have some services and approach towards the disadvantaged in san francisco. we have very little assistance for work force housing. anything that is affordable those making 25 to $60,000 a year and those in the yards are making 15 to 30 if they're lucking and we should look for opportunities of sites that sat dorm at and other areas and probably cost $50,000 to

renovate the bunkers for affordable housing until you're finally ready to do development on that site so maybe there are opportunities to look at that but please don't cut the social services and immediately on a planning department side there is a budgetary item that is currently pushing off the community development fees. this plan was implemented during the lowest part in the economy and we have more construction than ever so the current policy that exempts our developers or those fees that policy should be reversed and we will have continued input into the funds to support these services. thanks for your time. please support the arts whenever possible in your budgeting decisions today. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i am gabriel and speaking on advocate for more work force development system with folks with barriers of employment and

support the providers including jbs, self help for the elderly and many other groups. we appreciate your efforts of the mayor and rhonda simpsons and requesting these funds for development so folks can maintain employment in san francisco. it's critical to fund these programs to enhance the economic stability and prosperity of san franciscans so they can compete for the jobs and stay in san francisco. metaas you know is a community based local economic development agency. it's located in the mission district of san francisco for nearly 40 years. we have been work to improve social conditions in the neighborhood and stimulating investment and enhancing the business environment and jobs for the residents. it's critical to fund the programs

to maintain that. we had a huge displacement of our community in the mission district and all around an fran and it's all over and funding these programs will help keeping programs in san francisco. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> thank you for listening today supervisors. i debbie her man with the health and services network and i am here with the nonprofits and here to support the budget enhancement request. this is i group of asks put together by nonprofits, by the people that work for us, by the people that are served for us. there are several different areas. first of all we have been cutting the budgets for years. the economy is coming back and it's time to restore services for the most

vulnerable and secondly it's unnecessary to accept a unprecedented two year two cut to determine the services. third, it's a priority to back hill hiv/aids cuts in the budget and it's important to fund a cost of doing business nonprofits who have lost 12% de facto budget cut over the last five years. that money will provide social justice for the workers that need raidses, health increases and rent increases and save programs that are threatened by years of flat funding. the money is there. we ask your support to redirect resources and i know there is a list with many ideas where you can find the funding including suspending the budget stabilization reserve and the budget analyst's

recommendations. it's not about not having the resources but what we prioritize and we want the riez directed to where they can do the most good. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public that wish to comment at this time? okay. seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues we have a number of items in front of us and we're going to act on a bunch of them. let's take them one by one or in groupings here and go down in order. the first here is a hearing for dcyf where ms. sue came earlier today and held off comments and can i have a motion to continue item one until next wednesday. >> so moved. >> mr. chairman the agenda for wednesday has been published. i don't believe i can get that on

there. >> mr. city attorney -- >> deputy city attorney job gibner. so you could -- i believe everybody within that hearing could be discussed at part part of the budget when the department comes back. >> okay colleagues let's file this and continue to talk about these items when ms. sue comes before us again. >> that's fine. >> motion to file number one without obsigz. so moved. items two and three are the budget so can i have a motion to continue to monday the 24. we do so without opposition. so moved. items number four and five regarding treasure island development authority and the office of community investment infrastructure and continue those to wednesday the 26. so

moved. okay. >> mr. chairman i believe those are not on the agenda for wednesday. i believe those -- >> thursday. my apologize. motion to rescind the vote. okay. so we're going to do it for thursday. >> continue to thursday. >> okay. continue to next thursday. do that without opposition. so moved. item number six and seven have to do with the botanical garden so first i know supervisor breed had discussed with rec and park who i believe are here if there are additional questions rec and park introduced a substitute lease as well as substitute ordinance reflecting supervisor breed's comments. we might have a split vote here but could i have a motion to accept the lease. >> has it been amended?

>> no. we have accept it now and accept the lease changes as discussed by supervisor breed. okay. do we need a roll call vote on this one? >> [inaudible] >> okay. to amend. okay r. we can do so without opposition. okay. >> i believe these are listed on the wednesday june 6 agenda for next week. if you wish to continue to that date. >> mr. city attorney. >> the committee could act on those today and then they would be removed from the agenda or you could continue it to next week. >> all right. i think it is what it is so let's act on it today so on items six and seven. take them as a joint vote. we need a roll call. >> let's do roll call on those. >> on item six and seven.

supervisor mar. >> actually i'm going to vote yes on the lease and no on the fees. >> separate it out. >> item number six. supervisor mar. >> aye. >> supervisor avalos. >> [inaudible] >> avalos no. >> supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> the motion passes. on motion number seven. supervisor mar. >> no. >> supervisor avalos. >> no. >> supervisor breed. >> aye. >> supervisor wiener. >> aye. >> supervisor farrell. >> aye. >> the motion passs. >> to be clear those are forwarded to the full board for the meeting july 16. >> july 16. >> okay. those motions pass.

those items pass. item number eight we have some amendments mr. city attorney to item eight. >> yes. john gibner deputy city attorney again. two items that have been requested which the board can take with one vote. one is change out dated references to the art commission to the current name arts commission and the second is to change the type of fund for the war memorial to a category four fund which is an interest bearing fund. >> okay. colleagues any questions on those? can i have a motion to accept the amendments. >> so moved. >> so moved. and can i have a motion to move the item to the full board. do so without opposition. okay. item nine. can i have a motion to move it to the full board. >> so moved. >> july 16 without opposition.

similar motion number 10 to move to the full board on july 16. >> so moved. >> do so without opposition. >> item 11 similarly we need some amendments mr. city attorney. >> john gibner deputy city attorney again. this is just fixing some section numbers typos. >> okay. colleagues any questions? can i have a motion to amend -- per the city attorney's comments do so without opposition. move item 11 to the full board for july 16 as amended. do so without opposition. item number 12 mr. city attorney i believe we have amendments as well. >> yes. on this one a few numbering fixing which i believe has been distributed as well as medical examiner office asked us to delete the term over night processing for the fee to reflect what the fee is for. >> okay. colleagues if no

questions can i have a motion? >> so moved. >> motion to move 12 to the full board as amended. do so without opposition. mr. city attorney i believe we have amendments for item 13 as well. >> this one is just amendment to the title to reflect the actual content of the ordinance. >> motion to amend item 13 to the city attorney's comments. >> so moved. >> do so without opposition and move 13 to the full board july 16 board meeting. do so without opposition. mr. city attorney i believe item 14 needs to be amended as well. >> this is the last time i'm going to speak today. this is an amendment to accept the proposals of the budget analyst which he described on wednesday. it would provide that the library could accept gifts up to $100,000 without board approval but need approval for larger groups and eliminate the grant

fund originally in the ordinance. >> actually i thought -- >> supervisor wiener. >> i thought that the recommendation was just to remove the provision that exempted the library from the normal acceptance expense but still create the funds. >> the ordinance addressed two different types of funds. one for gifts to the library which usually require board approval if they're over $10,000 so this amendment would provide that the library could say they can accept gifts up to $100,000 and the second is for grants and the budget analyst didn't address grants in this ordinance. >> okay and subject to the normal rules. >> exactly. >> okay thank you. >> colleagues any further questions? could i have a motion? without opposition. all right. motion to move 14 forward to the full board for

the july 16 meefing. >> so moved. >> do so without opposition. colleagues i'm going to propose taking 15 through 23 together and motion to move to the full board for the july 16 board meeting. >> so moved. >> do so without opposition. item 23 is the -- >> item 24. >> yeah item 24 is regarding the stabilization reserve. can i a motion to continue this item. >> so moved. >> okay. can we do so without opposition? mr. clerk do we have any other items? >> that concludes the agenda. >> we are adjourned.>

>> welcome back to the june 19, 2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are now ready to call item no. 8. gerald and dale sullivan

versus department of public works bureau of aura ban forestry. this is the

good evening and welcome to the june 19, 2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the officer is chris hwang and lazarus and commissioner fung and honda. hurt hurtado will be absent. the attorney will provide any legal advice today. i'm the board's executive director. we are joined by representative from the city before the board tonight. scott is here

representing the planning department and the planning commission. duffy is here, senior building inspector representing building inspection and marcos and permit bureau and i believe we'll be joined by urban forester representing the department of bureau of urban forestry and the director of san francisco entertainment commission and rebecca from the arts commission. at this time mr. pacheco if you can go over the boards meeting guidelines and conduct the swear in process. >> the board request that you turn off all phones and pagers so they will not disturb the proceeding and please carry on conversation in the hallway t board rules and presentation are as as follows.. department representative each has seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated

with these parties must include their comments within the 3-7 minute periods. members of the public not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card when you come up to the podium. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction forms on the left. if you have a question about rehearing, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning t board of appeals office is located a 5050 mission street. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government

television sfgtv. thank you for your attention. at this point in time we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify in any of tonight's hearing and with issue to have the board give your testimony evidentiary wage, please raise your right hand and say i do after being sworn in or affirmed. thank you. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. thank you mr. pacheco. we have one housekeeping item this even this has to do with item no. 6.

item 6: appeal no. 13-049 jacqueline harris, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 744 carolina street. protesting the issuance on april 19, 2013, to william wiebe, permit to alter a building remove cooking facilities [free standing gas stove/oven] to re-establish building as singlefamily dwelling as authorized by dbi; see attached floor plann. application no. 2013/04/19/5010. housekeeping item this even this has to do with item no. 6. sf 61234 that matter has been withdrawn and will not be heard this evening. >> we'll start with item no. 1. anyone would like to speak on this item? >> seeing none. we'll move to commissioners comments and questions. commissioners? okay. then item no. 3 which is the consideration and possible adoption of the boards minutes for june 5, 2013. >> i move their adoption. any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, mr. pacheco please call the roll. >> on that motion from the president to adopt the june 5, 2013 minutes. commissioner fung, honda, the vote is 4-0.

the minutes are adopted. >> thank you. we'll call the item 4 a which is a hearing request. item 4a; rehearing request: subject property at 611 buena vista west avenue. letter from susan brandt-hawley, attorney for matthew & kristine leffers, appellants, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 12-171, decided on may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 3-2 to uphold the permit on condition that there be further setbacks at the front and back of the addition; four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental action under the city charter, the permit was upheld as is with no new conditions. permit holder: martin roscheisen. project: one-story vertical addition to existing two-story residence; roof of 3rd story addition will include green roof; project will have a basement addition; bpa no. 2011/05/04/5332s.request. item 4a; rehearing request: subject property at 611 buena vista west avenue. letter from susan brandt-hawley, attorney for matthew & kristine leffers, appellants, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 12-171, decided on may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 3-2 to uphold the permit on condition that there be further setbacks at the front and back of the addition; four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental action under the city charter, the permit was upheld as is with no new conditions. permit holder: martin roscheisen. project: one-story vertical addition to existing two-story residence; roof of 3rd story addition will include green roof; project will have a basement addition; bpa no. 2011/05/04/5332s. 1234request. item 4a; rehearing request: subject property at 611 buena vista west avenue. letter from susan brandt-hawley, attorney for matthew & kristine leffers, appellants, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 12-171, decided on may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 3-2 to uphold the permit on condition that there be further setbacks at the front and back of the

addition; four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental action under the city charter, the permit was upheld as is with no new conditions. permit holder: martin roscheisen. project: one-story vertical addition to existing two-story residence; roof of 3rd story addition will include green roof; project will have a basement addition; bpa no. 2011/05/04/5332s. 1234 the permit holder is martin . we'll start with the requester. you have three minutes. >> good evening, president hwang and members of the commission. i'm susan rembrandt es -- i would like to request a continuance. there was a 3-2 vote on the appeal when we were last here. we have a substantial new information and believe it's very important to have a full board here which we believe we respectfully request at this time. there are members of the neighborhood who are here today to testify and we would ask they be allowed to present testimony but the appellant could defer until commissioner hurtado can be here. should i proceed with the rest of my time or do i have a response about that? >> have you spoken to the permit holder? >> no. i just found out. >> your request for continuance is raised for the first time and the responder should have

an opportunity to respond. >> thank you. on behalf of the permit holder. we don't believe there is any cause for a rehearing and certainly no cause to rehear this matter. we would object. thank you. >> the board's practice is that we would continue if it an appears based on our discussion that the commissioner that vote would have an impact on this position. so, normally we don't grant these types of requests under our normal practice. what that means is after you present your case on the merits for the rehearing request, if during our discussion it appears that the absent commissioner's vote is going to be a positive vote, we then continue. >> sure. did you under what i said? >> i believe so. that we'll proceed with the hearing

tonight if in fact there is three votes tonight it will be continued for commissioner hurtado to continue as well unless we have four votes. >> correct. if it appears that that is a possibility it will make a difference. thank you. that's our normal practice. >> ms. holy, that the commissioner will view the video so they have the benefit of hearing the entire testimony. >> thank you very much. i appreciate that accommodation. as the board will recall when i was last here with the appellant we described why the addition is particularly out of mass -- and scale with the rest of the residence. it's a very small lot. i appreciate the commissioners that agreed with us last time. there was a dispute however that was raised by the project applicant or

permit holder which basically regarding what happened ten years ago when this third story was proposed, there were 4 dr request and they were resolved by actually house that is now built. there was an agreement made. we are not claiming there was a legal contract but there was an agreement made that they would remove that third story and various other accommodations were made regarding the design and the house and the landscaping. what they told the board was that they always intend today build this next story and the neighbors were fine with it and had no objections. we presented one piece of evidence that that wasn't true, it doesn't make a lot of sense, but beyond that we had testimony of john shields, one of the dr requesters indicating it was not true. since that time,

since our rehearing request there is substantial new information in that the architect, karen pay son when the dr was requested was representing the owner at that time of the house adjacent to the permit holders house at 615 buena vista and she recalls the meeting and and agreement made made and she instructed the then owner of the property, her client, to make sure the plans were submitted to planning and were signed off as consistent with the dr settlement and we presented that last time. we feel there is an equitable issue here. we believe that this project is an appropriate for this site and what the board looked at last time, we now have people from the neighborhood all of the dr requesters that were present ten years ago will be

presenting that information tonight. we also have from miss peyton's office. she wanted to be here because there was a contact made from the permit holder to her to pressure her to change her affidavit. she can't be here. she's out of state. >> my name is samantha -- an architectural designer. she asked me to read they mail. she's out of state right now. with they mail >> is that part of our record? >> at the mail? >> i have copies of it. >> it's not part of the record. your time is up. i'm going to allow if it's a very short e-mail to read it very quickly. >> dear susan i'm completely offended